PETERSFIELD.
COUNTY COURT, MONDAY.—(Before C. J. Gale, Esq.)—IMPORTANT TO CORN DEALERS.—This was a claim for 4l. damages for not delivering wheat according to sample. Mr. E. Albery, of Midhurst, appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Mitchell for the defendant. It appeared from the evidence for the plaintiff that he is the proprietor of several steam thrashing machines, and was employed by the defendant some time in the month of May Iast to thrash two ricks of wheat at Froxfield. When the wheat was thrashed it was dry and hard, and the weather fine. The quantity produced was about six loads. On the 18th of June the defendant showed the plaintiff a sample of wheat at Petersfield market, and represented it to be that so thrashed by him, of which, from its appearance he had no doubt. The plaintiff then agreed to purchase six loads, at 18l. 10s., and made an entry thereof in his pocket-book. Within half an hour afterwards he sold the six loads to Mr. Charles Collis, of Sutton for 18l. 12s. 6d. per load, and made an entry of the sale in his book. The plaintiff immediately afterwards informed defendant of the sale, and requested the wheat to be sent to Mr. Collis. Mr. Collis received the sample, and on the Saturday following he sold the wheat to Mr. Shenton, of Winchester, and handed the sample to him. Two loads of the wheat were delivered by the defendant to Mr. Collis on the following Tuesday, and two loads on the following Wednesday. Mr. Collis being absent from home, his storekeeper, in pursuance of previous directions, forwarded the two loads last delivered to Mr. Shenton. The two loads first delivered remained at Mr. Collis’ store until his return, when on examining the wheat he found it very much inferior to the sample and wrote to the plaintiff complaining of it. Mr. Shenton, on receiving the two loads which had been forwarded to him, made the same discovery, and refused the wheat altogether, and the whole of the four loads were ultimately disposed of by Mr. Collis at a loss of at least 30s. per load; but as the markets had risen in the meantime, he stopped 4l. only from the plaintiff. The remaining two toads were not delivered at all. Mr. Collis and Mr. Shenton both stated their conviction that the wheat had been watered, and it was explained by them that the effect of such an operation would be to increase the bulk at the expanse of weight independent of other deterioration. They judged the sample 62lbs. the bushel, but the bulk did not weigh 58lbs., and no atmospheric influence would account for such a great difference.
Mr. Mitchell, for the defence, said he was instructed that the sample was a fair one and taken from the bulk, and that the latter was not tampered with previous to delivery. He added that it was not likely that such a trick would be resorted to by a person in the defendant’s station, who had been in business 50 years without any complaint being made of his unfair dealing.
Mr. Collis begged to say that Mr. Mitchell was under a mistake in his concluding observation. His (Mr. Collis’) own experience of dealings with defendant enabled him to contradict that most positively.
The defendant was then sworn, and said he only sold four loads of wheat to the plaintiff; he gave him a fair sample, and sent the bulk according to it. He did not water the wheat after it was sold, but opened the barn doors to dry it.
His Honor remarked that the evidence preponderating altogether in favor of the plaintiff, he was entitled to the damages claimed, and he considered that the evidence of the defendant as to four loads only having been sold, in the face of the entries in the plaintiff’s pocket-book, showed that most reliance was to be placed on the plaintiff’s statement.
Judgment for 4l. and costs.